SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition involves a challenge to Clause 2(iv) of Annexure P -4 issued by the Government of Haryana on the subject to employment to the dependents of the deceased Government employees under Ex -Gratia Scheme.

(2.) FATHER of the Petitioner Shri Ranjit Singh was employed as Class IV servant (Mali -cum -Chowkidar) in Zila Sainik Board, Narnaul. He died on 19th April, 1994 while on duty. The Petitioner's mother submitted an application dated 9th May, 1994 before the Secretary, Zila Sainik Board, Narnaul for appointment of the petitioner,on compassionate grounds as per the Ex -Gratia Scheme formulated by the State Government. Her application was forwarded by the Secretary, Zila Sainik Board to the Secretary, Haryana Rajya Sainik Board. The Secretary, Haryana, Rajaya Sainik Board infromed the Secretary, Zila Sainik Board that the name of the Petitioner has been entered at Serial No. 463 of the priority list prepared by the Government for giving employment to him. On a further representation made by the Petitioner, the Secretary, Zila Sainik Board once again wrote on 12th June,"1995 to the Secretary, Haryana Rajya Sainik Board, Respondent No. 2, that employment may be provided to the Petitioner because the widow of late Shri Ranjit Singh was hard pressed. On 11th July, 1995 the Secretary, Zila Sainik Board wrote a letter (Annexure P -3) to Respondent No. 2 intimating that a post of Chowkidar -cum -mali was lying vacant in the Zila Sainik Board at Narnaul. An affidavit of the Petitioner was also sent alongwith letter (Annexure P -3). Notwithstanding these recommendations, the representations made by the Petitioner and her mother have not been decided, as a consequence of which, the Petitioner has not been given employment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the Ex -Gratia Scheme.

(3.) THE Respondents have pleaded -'that in view of the policy of the Government only unmarried children are eligible for appointment under the Ex -Gratia Scheme which has been framed keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 10504 of 1993 Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors., Respondents have further pleaded that mere inclusion of the name of the Petitioner in the priority list does not confer any right upon him to be appointed in the Government service and in view of the policy instructions issued by the Government, the petitioner cannot be given appointment on compassionate grounds.